DAMA v. Bronstein

• Decision Date: 14 December 1972
• Docket Number: No. 225 Docket 72-1769.,225 Docket 72-1769.
• Citation: 471 F.2d 297
• Parties: Venkaiah DAMA et al., Appellants, v. Harry I. BRONSTEIN, Personnel Director and Chairman, et al., Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

471 F.2d 297 (1972)

Venkaiah DAMA et al., Appellants, v. Harry I. BRONSTEIN, Personnel Director and Chairman, et al., Appellees.

No. 225 Docket 72-1769.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued December 14, 1972.

Decided December 14, 1972.

Samuel Resnicoff, New York City, for appellants.

Stanley Buchsbaum, New York City (Norman Redlich, Corporation Counsel for City of New York, on the brief), for appellees.

Before KAUFMAN, ANDERSON and OAKES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The district judge dismissed the complaint on the ground of mootness because he believed "that the substantive issue plaintiffs seek to raise is the one decided . . . by the three-judge court in Dougall v. Sugarman . . . now pending in the Supreme Court." 339 F.Supp. 906, probable jurisdiction noted, 407 U.S. 908, 92 S.Ct. 2434, 32 L.Ed.2d 682 We are of the view that the better procedure would have been for Judge Frankel to have withheld his order of dismissal, pending resolution of Dougall by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the district court and remand with directions to refrain from further proceedings pending the decision in Dougall v. Sugarman.